Future World Records without drugs

rekrunner wrote:

I'm all for a discussion on improving technique, efficiency, and running economy. Once you've developed a high aerobic capacity, then extended your stamina by developing a high lactate threshold, the remaining benefits will come from improvements in form, and long term improvements in things like neuro-muscular coordination. I've already mentioned a book (Matt Fitzgeralds' Brain Training) that I thought was a good starting point, for a description of a good form, and techniques to obtain it, ....

Some information from "Brain Training".

What are the characteristics of good form?

1) Stiffness -- this refers to using your legs as springs. A stiffer spring can store and release more energy than a loose spring.

2) Compactness -- this concerns optimal stride length and cadence, and proper foot placement on landing, to avoid wasting energy (or braking) due to overstriding.

3) Ballistic Action -- More powerful muscle explosive actions during a shorter timeframe. Results in shorter contact time, and forceful strides, followed by a more energetic bounce.

4) Stability -- this concerns preventing joint collapse and wasting energy with unwanted motions in the knees, pelvis, and hips.

5) Symmetry -- this concerns symmetry everywhere, from the shoulder to the feet. Small asymmetries are unavoidable, but large asymmetries are wasteful. Also includes long axis rotation of the spine.

Three types of approaches to improving your form:

1) Emulation -- Reading books, studies on gait retraining, and studying elite runners to produce a list of characteristics like the one above

2) Proprioceptive cues -- Things to think about while running to control specific aspects of your stride.

3) Technique drills -- Specific drills designed to enhance the five characteristics of good form.

12 Proprioceptive cues -- focus on one at a time, e.g. for one week, then to the next one, and continue the rotation

1) Falling forward

2) Navel to Spine

3) Running on Water

4) Pulling the Road

5) Scooting

6) Pounding the Ground

7) Driving the Thigh

8) Floppy feet

9) Butt squeeze

10) Feeling Symmetry

11) Axle Between the Knees

12) Running Against a Wall

6 Technique drills -- might do 2 or 3 after a base or recovery run once a week

1) Running no Arms

2) Steep Hill Springs

3) One-Leg Hop

4) High Knees

5) Bounding

6) Stiff-Legged Running

(cont'd)

As a compliment to training, runners can do cross training in the form of different exercises designed to isolate, and strengthen auxillary muscles, and prevent injury or faciliate recovery from injury.

If auxiliary muscles become fatigued, this will result in a breakdown of form, a loss of efficiency, and in the worst case, injury.

Core Conditioning (in progressive phases)

1) Finding your Stabilizers

2) Stabilization and Coordination

3) Functional Stability

4) Maintenance

Power Training

Like "weight training" for runners, 6 exercises designed to increase power

Dynamic stretching

8 exercises to warm up the muscles that more closely mimic a dynamic running stride compared to static stretching

Injury prevention

New sources of injury come from 1) too much sitting at sedentary jobs, and 2) from modern shoes (creating weaker feet and ankles).

1) Anti Sitting (5 stretches)

2) A highly cautious recommendation for minimal shoes, only if your current shoes might be causing you problems

He missed out the most important one.

Train harder.

I don't understand his 12 proprioceptive clues. There are some things in all of those lists that sound good, and others which I am skeptical about. The falling forward, is that the same as the pose method thing? That has been thoroughly debunked here hasn't it?

Well, actually he didn't -- I did. I only included an outline of material he presented in 3 chapters. There are 7 more chapters (plus 4 more of training plans that incorporate his recommendations).I only included material regarding improving form, technique, and efficiency, and also remedies to prevent form breakdown, inefficiency and injury. These topics seemed the most relevant to the central issue of improving biomechanical efficiency.In the other chapters, since "Brain Training" is a book focused on the role of the brain, he explores many other techniques to help overcome mental barriers that prevent you from training harder, and racing faster. He also describes an approach that allows you to train at progressively higher paces as you get fitter.

jono wrote:

He missed out the most important one.

...

Train harder.

OH MY GOD, would you two pseudo-intellectuals shack up already??

Nobody knows exactly why EPO does what it does, but it does! It's empirically supported that it boosts performance. Do a peer-reviewed study on the biomechanical and thermoregulatory processes involved, and then get back to us!

All we have is a bunch of empirical studies at this point. Jono, stop trying to be an iconoclastic genius. Rekrunner, stop egging this contrarian on...

I only wrote the names, but each of these cues comes with its own paragraph of explanation. For example, it's easy to misinterpret "butt squeeze" (a cue to encourage muscle pre-activation before the foot landing, rather than an encouragement to inappropriately assault a training partner or competitor).Don't confuse the catchy titles of mental cues with unrelated contexts such as how posers describes the physics behind pose. These cues are only mental images in the brain designed to help develop the characteristics of form described above."Falling forward", as a proprioceptive cue, is a full body lean from the ankles, and not the waist (encourages keeping the hips forward), that helps correct any over-striding by promoting a foot landing that is below the center of gravity, rather than ahead of it. Like this, it's easy to see the connection and contribution to: "stiffness", "compactness", "ballistic action", "stability", and "symmetry".Mentally, it's more powerful to imagine a seeming sensation of "falling forward" (with a focus on hip and foot placement) during the whole run to achieve a desired form, rather than solving physics equations in your mind about torques, moments, rotational inertia, etc., that debunk claims that gravity pulls you forward.

jono wrote:

I don't understand his 12 proprioceptive clues. There are some things in all of those lists that sound good, and others which I am skeptical about. The falling forward, is that the same as the pose method thing? That has been thoroughly debunked here hasn't it?

Do you want to join us?

bored.... wrote:

OH MY GOD, would you two pseudo-intellectuals shack up already??

Nobody knows exactly why EPO does what it does, but it does! It's empirically supported that it boosts performance. Do a peer-reviewed study on the biomechanical and thermoregulatory processes involved, and then get back to us!

All we have is a bunch of empirical studies at this point. Jono, stop trying to be an iconoclastic genius. Rekrunner, stop egging this contrarian on...

bored.... wrote:

OH MY GOD, would you two pseudo-intellectuals shack up already??

Nobody knows exactly why EPO does what it does, but it does! It's empirically supported that it boosts performance. Do a peer-reviewed study on the biomechanical and thermoregulatory processes involved, and then get back to us!

All we have is a bunch of empirical studies at this point. Jono, stop trying to be an iconoclastic genius. Rekrunner, stop egging this contrarian on...

So you recongize that there are biomechanical and thermoregulatory processes involved. Congratulations, That's a start at least. Now apply those basic physiological concepts to the PED dogma and you might get a bit further. Eventually you might even come to the realialization that you might have to think differently about the subject?

In the meantime, look up the word homeostasis, somthing that most exercize physiologists seem to be unaware of.

I don't like this 'below the center of gravity landing' stuff. There is no other way to run if you think about it. We all learn this as a basisc skill before we are two years old. It's like telling people to breathe in and out.

And I don't agree with forward lean either. I don't think that is good biomechanics. Upright stance is the most efficient for maintaining speed.

Anyway, if you're so smart, how can you write such stupid comments as:

bored.... wrote:

OH MY GOD, would you two pseudo-intellectuals shack up already??

Nobody knows exactly why EPO does what it does, but it does! It's empirically supported that it boosts performance

You know that I would run rings around your loose grasp of exercise physiology don't you? That's not just a taunt, it's a genuine challenge.

I guess many people have learned to run without thinking about it then. If you overstride, you need a technique to retrain your gait.How about a "slightly forward tilt"?

jono wrote:

I don't like this 'below the center of gravity landing' stuff. There is no other way to run if you think about it. We all learn this as a basisc skill before we are two years old. It's like telling people to breathe in and out.

And I don't agree with forward lean either. I don't think that is good biomechanics. Upright stance is the most efficient for maintaining speed.

'Drug Dogma' is a snazzy term, I'll give you that.

So you think we can naturally achieve the results that drugs provide? How though? Placebo effect? Consistent and ideal training?

What is your take on pharmaceuticals outside the realm of sport?

I'll agree that there is a certain mysticism surrounding drugs, that they can somehow transform a slightly good athlete into a world-beater.

People that adopt this mindset will just say that it depends on who is a "high responder."

Are you talking to me? It seems like these are more questions for "jono". Drug Dogma isn't my term, so "jono" gets the credit for the snazz.This thread isn't supposed to be about drugs (but how to become better without drugs), but if you are really asking my opinion about drug effectiveness, it's rather complex, depending on the drug, the event, and the athlete.I don't generally deny that drugs can work, but think that at the very least, some law of diminishing returns applies to elites when highly trained, and particularly for East Africans at altitude for drugs like EPO.In this sense, I consider amateurs are high responders, and elites would be low responders."hi-lo" altitude training has also been shown to provide similar short term benefits, as EPO.I'm inclined to believe something similar to what Renato says in the sense that:- for distance runners, whatever EPO can do, good training can do too (given enough time)- for sprinters, strength events, and especially for women, steroids and testosterone can provide "super-human" results that cannot be achieved by the same athlete, from training aloneFor cyclists, I don't know what to think about EPO, since the cyclists seemed to be combining it with everything they thought could work. This makes sense for maximizing results, but not for controlling scientific experiments in order to draw definite conclusions.The marathon is a special case. I don't believe that any drug can turn a 2:07 marathon athlete into a sub-2:04 athlete -- mainly since glycogen management is so critical and drugs would (presumably) burn glycogen more quickly (unless there exists a drug that can significantly accelerate getting energy from fat).Therefore I tend to believe that sub 2:07 performances are clean (or that doping didn't help), and that Paula Radcliffe's 2:17s and 2:15 are clean too.But I have no practical experience with drugs (besides beer and wine), so take my faithful beliefs for what they are worth. I'm prepared to listen to reasoned arguments and new facts, but will be a low responder to baseless accusations and being called naive.Pharmaceuticals outside sport?:- I enjoy beer and wine, but not to excess (I do it but don't enjoy it later)- I don't recommend illegal drugs -- they are against the law- I don't generally take drugs if I'm sick (despite my excellent single payer health care coverage), unless I feel I have toHope this helps.

bored.... wrote:

'Drug Dogma' is a snazzy term, I'll give you that.

So you think we can naturally achieve the results that drugs provide? How though? Placebo effect? Consistent and ideal training?

What is your take on pharmaceuticals outside the realm of sport?

I'll agree that there is a certain mysticism surrounding drugs, that they can somehow transform a slightly good athlete into a world-beater.

People that adopt this mindset will just say that it depends on who is a "high responder."

Hmm... yea it was meant for Jono, but thanks for the response. Interesting thoughts about EPO... A lot of training would be required.

rekrunner wrote:

I guess many people have learned to run without thinking about it then. If you overstride, you need a technique to retrain your gait.

How about a "slightly forward tilt"?

jono wrote:

I don't like this 'below the center of gravity landing' stuff. There is no other way to run if you think about it. We all learn this as a basisc skill before we are two years old. It's like telling people to breathe in and out.

And I don't agree with forward lean either. I don't think that is good biomechanics. Upright stance is the most efficient for maintaining speed.

Overstriding? We've been through this before, don't you remember. No-one runs in this supposed overstridign gait that slow runners are reckoned to have. Running is a basic skill for survival, the balance required is learned at a very early age.

Anyway, back to physics, we all have to land slightly in front of our centre of gravity to produce force. We accelerate our mass into the ground and then use the ground force reaction to accelerate off the ground, so some braking force is required.

bored.... wrote:

'Drug Dogma' is a snazzy term, I'll give you that.

So you think we can naturally achieve the results that drugs provide? How though? Placebo effect? Consistent and ideal training?

What is your take on pharmaceuticals outside the realm of sport?

I'll agree that there is a certain mysticism surrounding drugs, that they can somehow transform a slightly good athlete into a world-beater.

People that adopt this mindset will just say that it depends on who is a "high responder."

Thanks, I'll take snazzy, it was one of my favourite words way back when.

Drugs don't provide results, athletes do. Their mindset is obviously focused on winning. That's not as rhetorical as it sounds because many competitors are easily psyched out by someone with a current reputation for winning, or just psyched out by other competitors aggression or whatever. Many don't really want to win, just to take part.

Mysticism? Indeed. Drug mysticism goes back how far? Thousands of years? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands?

On the website sports(pseudo)scientists dot com they blather on endlessly about drugs and cyclists' power outputs and efficiencies without every pointing out how a better pedalling action is more efficient. They are completely and utterly nuts about drugs, and completely ignorant about basic physiology and the relationship between skill and power output.

jono wrote:

I don't like this 'below the center of gravity landing' stuff. There is no other way to run if you think about it. We all learn this as a basisc skill before we are two years old. It's like telling people to breathe in and out.

And I don't agree with forward lean either. I don't think that is good biomechanics. Upright stance is the most efficient for maintaining speed.

Your just saying things. No he cares what you "think". Show us facts. Why would upright be most efficient?

I remember all of our talks, but am not always persuaded by just talk.Keep in mind that these cues are just mental images designed to encourage a desired change, not necessarily the reality. The cue "falling forward" is not a description of the desired gait, but an exaggerated mental exercise designed to prevent a (purportedly) common mistake that could lead to a bad form, or a breakdown of form.If you google image search for "overstriding", you will find lots of photographic evidence of nobodies. Maybe these photos are all staged for the purpose of discussion.From the few scientific discussions I've seen, with photographic analysis, with the correct gait, we do land slightly in front of the center of gravity. The main concern seems to be the angle of the leg during the footstrike, and whether the foot lands slightly in front, versus way in front (e.g. straight leg, extended far forward, with a heel strike).If you insist overstriding doesn't exist, then by all means ignore this cue.

jono wrote:

Overstriding? We've been through this before, don't you remember. No-one runs in this supposed overstridign gait that slow runners are reckoned to have. Running is a basic skill for survival, the balance required is learned at a very early age.

Anyway, back to physics, we all have to land slightly in front of our centre of gravity to produce force. We accelerate our mass into the ground and then use the ground force reaction to accelerate off the ground, so some braking force is required.